The year of whose lord?

[Drich]

Slut.

---

How is it you see a contradiction in Luke 2 with the time line of Herods death?

Herod was dead for 10 years before Quirinius got there.

While looking for the resources to back the general rebuttle for this supposed 'contradiction' i found that someone has done all of the work for me. so lets start here. I subscribe to the 'first explaination' but will leave you with both if you want something else to discuss.

What exactly was it that Caesar Augustus decreed, according to Luke 2:1? The King James Version of the Bible says, "that all the world should be taxed." Most other translations say something like "that all the world should be registered" (NRS) or "that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world" (NIV). The Greek verb is apographo, which literally means to "enroll" or "register" as in an official listing of citizens.2 What was it then, a census or a taxing? Both: It would have been a census taken in part for the purpose of assessing taxes. But only in part. Augustus was very interested in the number of citizens in his empire; he was especially interested in whether that number was growing. This probably was the primary reason for the census (see below).

But what of the census that Luke 2:1 speaks of? Is there any record outside of the Bible that Augustus ever issued such a decree? Yes. As a matter of fact he authorized three censuses during this reign. How do we know this? The three censuses are listed in the Acts of Augustus, a list of what Augustus thought were the 35 greatest achievements of his reign. He was so proud of the censuses that he ranked them eighth on the list. The Acts of Augustus were placed on two bronze plaques outside of Augustus's mausoleum after he died.

The three empire-wide censuses were in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and 14 A.D. In all probability the one in 8 B.C. is the one the Luke mentions in the Christmas story. Even though scholarship normally dates Christ's birth between 4 and 7 B.C., the 8 B.C. census fits because in all likelihood it would have taken several years for the bureaucracy of the census to reach Palestine.

The only apparent difficulty with identifying the census that Luke mentions in the Christmas story with the one in 8 B.C. is, ironically, something Luke seemingly included to clarify the dating. He tells us in 2:2 that "this was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governing Syria." Seems simple. All we have to do is find out exactly when Quirinius was governing Syria and then we will know exactly when the census was given, right? Right. But the problem is, according to records available to us, Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6-7 A.D. -- eleven years too late!

We know this because ancient historians have quite a bit to say about our man Quirinius. Roman historians Tacitus, Seutonius, and Dio Cassius, as well as Jewish historian Josephus all wrote of him.3 His full name was Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (d. 21 A.D.), who was what the Romans called a "new man." This means that he came to hold his political office on the basis of his own merits rather than by family tradition and inheritance. It was through his military conquests in Cilicia and elsewhere that Quirinius had been exalted by the emperor to the holding of governor in Syria in 6-7 A.D.

Does this mean that Luke is in error? Not at all, especially when he shows himself to be such a careful historian throughout both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles, his other historical work. Besides, we believe Luke's Gospel to be inspired by the Holy Spirit!

The key to solving this alleged puzzle, is in the phrase "first census" in the sentence, "This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governing Syria." What does Luke mean by a first census? One theory offered is that the Greek word for "first" (prote) is sometimes translated "prior to" or "before." This is a viable solution because the Greek text of Luke 2:2 can indeed be translated, "This census was before Quirinius was governing Syria."

A second theory holds that by saying "first census" Luke is telling his readers that there was another census that Quirinius oversaw. Was there a second one? Yes, and Luke mentions it in the Acts 5:37! The second census mentioned in Acts would have taken place in 6 A.D. Since it is well known that the Romans often held provincial censuses every fourteen years, it would follow that the "first census," the one at the time of Christ's birth, would have been held in approximately 8 B.C. -- if the fourteen year census cycle was in place at this time. The problem with this second solution is that Luke is specifically saying that the first census (the 8 B.C. one) took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria; and from all available extrabiblical sources, he wasn't. According to E.M. Blaiklock, however, evidence has been found that shows that Quirinius was in Syria for an earlier tour of duty, right around the time that Christ was born. He wasn't there as governor but in some other leadership capacity.4 Therefore, it is possible that Luke is alluding to this in 2:2.

Of the two theories the first has more to commend it, in my opinion. Ultimately, however, Luke was much closer to the historical sources and claims to have "investigated everything carefully" (Luke 1:3) and he did this under the Holy Spirit's inspiration. The bottom line is that the evidence that we have points to 8 B.C. as the date when the "Christmas census" would have been authorized.

http://www.orlutheran.com/html/census.html

[jonb]

Was she married to Joseph when she got pregnant with Jesus?

Look the whole thing is made up, but for a man of that society to marry a girl with child would need some explaining. Oh sod this, you have somehow forced me into becoming a christian apologist, I need a drink after falling through that fence.

[Cinjin]

I read Drich's copy and paste:


You'd think your almighty, all knowing, perfect god could keep his authors from confusing the shit out of everyone and leave absolutely no room for theories, conjecture and the inevitable (and painfully obvious) contradictions.

It's the same ole same ole from you and your kind: "This is what god really meant, and all you need to do is trust me that THIS particular interpretation is the one true explanation." "Oh and uh, an extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek, a library of ancient manuscripts, a Doctorate in Theology and a healthy dose of 'creative phrasing' is also very helpful in understanding what god REALLY meant."

[Reforged]

I read Drich's copy and paste:


You'd think your almighty, all knowing, perfect god could keep his authors from confusing the shit out of everyone and leave absolutely no room for theories, conjecture and the inevitable (and painfully obvious) contradictions.

It's the same ole same ole from you and your kind: "This is what god really meant, and all you need to do is trust me that THIS particular interpretation is the one true explanation." "Oh and uh, an extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek, a library of ancient manuscripts, a Doctorate in Theology and a healthy dose of 'creative phrasing' is also very helpful in understanding what god REALLY meant."

hot-tub=drichs reasoning



I think some just took a big shit in your pool pal.

[Drich]

I read Drich's copy and paste:


You'd think your almighty, all knowing, perfect god could keep his authors from confusing the shit out of everyone and leave absolutely no room for theories, conjecture and the inevitable (and painfully obvious) contradictions.

It's the same ole same ole from you and your kind: "This is what god really meant, and all you need to do is trust me that THIS particular interpretation is the one true explanation." "Oh and uh, an extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek, a library of ancient manuscripts, a Doctorate in Theology and a healthy dose of 'creative phrasing' is also very helpful in understanding what god REALLY meant."

There is no confusion for one willing to do just the tinest bit of research. It took me all of 2 mins to put that post together. The problem lies when one put all of his eggs into the english translation and ignores the fact that everything that is being discussed happened in a different time, culture and language. so yeah there are going to be some areas where things get lost in translation. It seems every other area of the world understands this except english speaking countries. This should be a bit of a wake up call in the the world, more over God does not revolve around you or what you think you understand. We have been commanded to seek God. looking past the english is apart of that 'seeking' process.

[KnockEmOuttt]

I read Drich's copy and paste:


You'd think your almighty, all knowing, perfect god could keep his authors from confusing the shit out of everyone and leave absolutely no room for theories, conjecture and the inevitable (and painfully obvious) contradictions.

It's the same ole same ole from you and your kind: "This is what god really meant, and all you need to do is trust me that THIS particular interpretation is the one true explanation." "Oh and uh, an extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek, a library of ancient manuscripts, a Doctorate in Theology and a healthy dose of 'creative phrasing' is also very helpful in understanding what god REALLY meant."

There is no confusion for one willing to do just the tinest bit of research. It took me all of 2 mins to put that post together. The problem lies when one put all of his eggs into the english translation and ignores the fact that everything that is being discussed happened in a different time, culture and language. so yeah there are going to be some areas where things get lost in translation. It seems every other area of the world understands this except english speaking countries. This should be a bit of a wake up call in the the world, more over God does not revolve around you or what you think you understand. We have been commanded to seek God. looking past the english is apart of that 'seeking' process.

Most of those places you're talking about follow the bible very literally and blindly.

Things are perhaps "lost in translation", but it doesn't change the fact that the bible as we know it to be written is mostly true to the original translation, and the translated texts are what the religion is based on. The whole picking and choosing thing is just how Christians get around the fact that their "infallible" book is heavily flawed so that they can justify it. It doesn't change anything.

[Cinjin]

I read Drich's copy and paste:


You'd think your almighty, all knowing, perfect god could keep his authors from confusing the shit out of everyone and leave absolutely no room for theories, conjecture and the inevitable (and painfully obvious) contradictions.

It's the same ole same ole from you and your kind: "This is what god really meant, and all you need to do is trust me that THIS particular interpretation is the one true explanation." "Oh and uh, an extensive knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek, a library of ancient manuscripts, a Doctorate in Theology and a healthy dose of 'creative phrasing' is also very helpful in understanding what god REALLY meant."

There is no confusion for one willing to do just the tinest bit of research. It took me all of 2 mins to put that post together. The problem lies when one put all of his eggs into the english translation and ignores the fact that everything that is being discussed happened in a different time, culture and language. so yeah there are going to be some areas where things get lost in translation. It seems every other area of the world understands this except english speaking countries. This should be a bit of a wake up call in the the world, more over God does not revolve around you or what you think you understand. We have been commanded to seek God. looking past the english is apart of that 'seeking' process.

That's awesome. YOU have the internet and someone else's research and yet have the audacity to proclaim, "Hey it only took me 2 minutes to do the tiniest bit of research." Screw all those people who don't have the internet and someone else's extensive research. How obtuse can you possibly be??? If you wanted to know what god meant prior to 1993 and you didn't have access to a library of Hebrew and Greek and/or you simply weren't willing to take a fundy researcher's word for granted, you were screwed. Which equals BILLIONS of people. Your god's more impotent and pathetic than fat Elvis.

God: "Hey I want them to seek me ... and I'm going to make it a brutal son of a bitch to do just that."

[jonb]

We have been commanded to seek God. looking past the english is apart of that 'seeking' process.

I know just what you mean, always queuing up for something you want arn't they and getting in the way! I have much the same problem when looking at Belgiums, apples come from nowhere.

[Cinjin]

more over God does not revolve around you or what you think you understand.

From what I can tell, your god doesn't do shit. I mean seriously, he needs a good bitch slap and get off his lazy ass.

[Drich]

Most of those places you're talking about follow the bible very literally and blindly.

..And you know this because you been to "Most of those places" or are you relying on a sterotype?

Things are perhaps "lost in translation", but it doesn't change the fact that the bible as we know it to be written is mostly true to the original translation, and the translated texts are what the religion is based on. The whole picking and choosing thing is just how Christians get around the fact that their "infallible" book is heavily flawed so that they can justify it. It doesn't change anything.

ahhh, no.

the bible (Or rather most verions of it in the English) are what as known as a literal translation where they take a word in the greek or Hebrew and contextually translate and place it so it read smoothly to english readers. However inorder to do this a great deal is lost to translation. History, Cultural meanings, poetry, and a great majority of it is cast aside to maintain literal continuity, (closest thing to a word for word translation as possiable) rather than interject commentary. That said there are many bibles out there in the english that have commentary. But these are considered to be influenced by which ever brand of Christianity/or other faith has included the commentary.